Many of us oppose new gun legislation, many of us would like some of the legislation already in affect to be repealed.

However, when it comes to certain firearms, do you think there is a reasonable limit to their accessability?

Am I wrong to think that the current regulations against NFA firearms is okay? While I do not support an outright ban, I do feel that some regulation is good, as it keeps honest people honest for the most part. This is not a thread about the merits of legislation and how they prevent the criminals from getting their hands on fully automatic firearms, I am not naive enough to believe that criminals will ever obey the law.

However, for the law abiding, I believe something as potent as an automatic firearm does need to be regulated a little differently than semi automatic firearms.

I'm kind of on the fence here, please tell me what you think about this. Am I being hypocritical supporting the current laws in place that make it prohibitively expensive for the average person from owning a full auto weapon yet supporting the idea of less restrictions on semi auto firearms? Some laws I believe are perfectly fine and have a reason to be there, it's when they get out of hand that they become a burdon IMO. (When they become a burdon is up to speculation at best though)

True enough, the ultimate safety is you and whats sitting upon your shoulders. A responsible firearms owner would give no reason for the public to be concerned.

I guess I can see both sides of the argument here, those that want legislation and those that don't. I'm honestly torn between the two, I just feel like a hypocrite support greater freedom of one type of firearm as opposed to another. That doesn't seem to make me any better than the antis when they argue over the lethality of a bolt action and a semi auto "assault weapon"

I wish they were legal to own without jumping through all of the hoops. They used to be. They would then be less expensive and you could buy a new one. I would love to have a .22lr auto to plink with. Way too many laws on the books the way it is.

It's kind of like the "poop in the brownies" analogy. How much poop do you put into a batch of brownies before you will not eat them? I'm guessing any poop in the brownies at all will be a bad thing.

So, how many gun laws need to be introduced before the next one is too much? I think we passed that mark long ago.

Philosophically, I'm opposed to it. Practically speaking, I they'd open up the registry again, I'd have less of a problem with the registry. Unfortunately, the step after creating a registry is to close the registry.

Behind that statement is the idea that otherwise the firearm itself can somehow change someone from law abiding to not law abiding, and that laws/regulation staves off the evil inherent in firearms.

Dishonest people/criminals will do as they please regardless of the law, as you acknowledge, the law only burdens those who follow it. The law abiding do not need a law saying they can't own this or that in the hope that it would prevent them from killing people...because they already follow the law that says...Don't Kill People...

If it were a perfect world, then the registry would still be open, but I don't think that's realistic. Even the NRA wouldn't back that legislation and it has zero support among lawmakers or the public.

The NFA is just confusing and restrictive enough that most anti-gun voters and politicians leave it alone and that's how I like it. Those that want to own them, even in a lot of unfriendly gun states, can pay their money, jump through some hoops and buy a machine gun. If you're a little light on cash, then it's not much trouble to find a range that rents them. Either one is better than a complete ban.

I have yet to see an example of that in practice. Regulation exists to restrict and limit things to the law abiding. It is by its very nature punitive, and we need to be very wary of how much of it we let creep into our lives.

As for full auto...anyone's welcome to tell me what was so wrong with the world in 1933 that it had to be "fixed" by something as expensive and disastrous as the NFA.

__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe

Quote:
However, when it comes to certain firearms, do you think there is a reasonable limit to their accessability?

Nope - none - nada - zip - zilch...

Hmmm... so violent felons and minors should be able to own them?

Personally, I'm kinda glad full-auto firearms are restricted (not suppressors, though--I don't get that at all). I don't think they should be outlawed, but I do think they should be regulated. I know that I can legally acquire one, if I wanted. It's a more involved process, sure, but I can pass the background checks, etc.

I understand, from a RKBA standpoint, why some folks might feel that any regulation or restriction defies the 2nd amendment. Honestly though? No line at all? Any weapon conceived by man should be available with no regulation whatsoever?

I don't think felons should be allowed to own firearms. Maybe it's taboo to agree with some firearm regulations. Maybe I need to turn in my NRA membership card. But it is my opinion.

I find full auto guns to be of very limited usefulness. Select fire weapons on the other hand would be excellent for home defense.

Quote:

However, when it comes to certain firearms, do you think there is a reasonable limit to their accessibility?

Possibly. But we have in place now is more like a ban. Kind of like driving an American car in Cuba.

__________________Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday.

I find full auto guns to be of very limited usefulness. Select fire weapons on the other hand would be excellent for home defense.

I wasn't aware that there were many full auto weapons that weren't select fire

__________________
I told the new me,
"Meet me at the bus station and hold a sign that reads: 'Today is the first day of the rest of your life.'"
But the old me met me with a sign that read: "Welcome back."
Who you are is not a function of where you are. -Off Minor

What's the difference between an index finger moving rapidly back & forth at a grand total of 1/2" compared to keeping it pulled back? To me, the end result isn't much after weighing the consequences.

Poorer muzzle control is a valid argument. Disastrous results are aplenty. But let's look at the big picture. There are already full auto owners. The only major difference between Joe Schmoe like me and a full auto owner is 3-4 months of patience and a few hundred less in their bank account. Laws of probability come in play, you say? The more owners there are the greater the chance of something negative happening due to a full auto weapon? Ok, sure. You can argue that point.

Here are some items to consider on that law of probability. If there's an actual incident involving a full auto that ends up being bad news, I'm betting on it being few and far between. Look at the number of former military personnel with experience handling a full auto. Look at the possible demographics of individuals that will be serious enough to actually want a full auto. How many that might be irresponsible with a full auto will actually want one?

There's so many variables involved it's hard to put it on paper to prove or disprove if full auto weapons are warranted.

That's why I rely on some really smart men with sound forethought when the 2nd Amendment was written. My personal belief is there should be absolutely NO restrictions on a law abiding person to own a weapon they can keep and bear. Period.

__________________
If it were up to me, the word "got" would be deleted from the English language.

I wasn't aware that there were many full auto weapons that weren't select fire

Nearly all of the ones in the US in civilian hands are not select fire.

Quote:

The only major difference between Joe Schmoe like me and a full auto owner is 3-4 months of patience and a few hundred less in their bank account.

I would argue that difference is more significant than you imagine. When I explain to people all the hoops you have to go through to get a suppressor it causes a lot of the less responsible to stop pursuing it right away.

__________________Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday.

I wouldn't have nearly the problem with the NFA and associated registry I do except for a couple of problems:

1) The registry is closed and pocession of an unregistered NFA is a felony. What happens to Grandma when she tries to turn in recently dead grandpa's full auto M-2 carbine he brought back from Korea in his duffel bag?

2) The BATFE isn't the most honest, competent, etc. arm of the Justice Department.

3) I dislike the government taxing something that isn't directly affecting commerce between the states. I should be able to buy a machine gun from a dealer in GA without paying a tax to Washington, D.C

4) The NFA was more of a measure to keep about a jillion Revenue Agents in work after they couldn't head up the holler after John Lee Pettymore anymore with the repealing of Prohibition

5) The fact that the NFA was the ultimate foot in the door Federal gun control law

6) The fact that FDR wanted to included pistols as NFA weapons.

Do I have a real interest in owning a full auto weapon? Not really other than wanting to own an M-4A1 like what I carried in the Sandbox. And hell, I just want to hang that up over that mantel so I can tell cool stories to my grandkids one day.

However, I have an intense dislike of the government telling me that I can't own said M-4A1 because it was made after 1986.

__________________
NRA Life Member
Ladyfriend: "I need help with the leaves in the yard"
Me: "Controlled burn?"
LadyFriend: "I forgot my Boy Scout turned into an infantry officer."

IMO, full-auto firearms have their place. They are expensive and have regulations to follow for a reason. If not, everyone will have automatic weapons, which may or may not be a good thing.

Those who want to obtain them legally just need to have the patience (and funds) to go through the lengthy process. What I wish is that the process was easier and a lot shorter. They should also be legal in all states.

If I am wealthy enough to buy a M1A1 tank, along with the HEAT and Depleted Uranium penetrator rounds, should I be able to do so? What about an F-15 with a load of 20mm shells, JDAMs, and AIM-120 missiles? What about a 50 gallon drum of binary chemical weapon? Or how about I set up my own bio-warfare lab - that would be cool. [sarcasm ends here]

No sane person will believe that the 2nd amendment protects our right to equip our own personal army. In the early days of the republic, Congress closely regulated the privateers (privately owned warships), their operations and movements were highly infringed. Congress did away with them completely after a short time... within the lifespan of many of the founding fathers. Did Jefferson, Adams, or Madison speak out against disarming the privateers, denying them the RKBA? Uh... No.

There is a line between an "arm" which is protected by the 2nd, and a weapon of war which is not. A 38 revolver is clearly an arm. A 105 mm gun is clearly weapon of war. Where is that line? For all practical purposes it is full auto, and/or 50 caliber.

Now for me, that line seems pretty reasonable. If we get through this whole mess with the right to own 30 round mags for our 5.56 and 7.62 semi-auto rifles (even though they look evil), I will be pretty happy. We don't need to be making fantasy arguments in favor of full auto weapons. If the line is not drawn on full auto, where is the line separating Arms from Weapons of War? It sounds like some of you are saying there is no line... Is that what you are saying?

without the 50 cal machine guns and bombs, it was just an airplane, not a weapon. Further, owning an airplane comes with a huge book of restrictions (even in 1946). There is nothing about owning and flying an airplane that remotely resembles "shall not be infringed".

My point is that the founders did not consider privately owned warships to be protected by the 2nd. So obviously they envisioned a line of separation... musket yes, warship no.

This email link is to reach site administrators for assistance, if you cannot access TFL via other means. If you are a TFL member and can access TFL, please do not use this link; instead, use the forums (like Questions, Suggestions, and Tech Support) or PM an appropriate mod or admin.

If you are experiencing difficulties posting in the Buy/Sell/Trade subforums of TFL, please read the "sticky" announcement threads at the top of the applicable subforum. If you still feel you are qualified to post in those subforums, please contact "Shane Tuttle" (the mod for that portion of TFL) via Private Message for assistance.

This email contact address is not an "Ask the Firearms Expert" service. Such emails will be ignored. If you have a firearm related question, please register and post it on the forums.